Growing Inconsistencies in the Church

Over the past months, we have seen some troubling events unfold. Bishops have removed faithful priests from their positions. Priests who openly make statements or actions against Sacred Doctrine have been moved into a greater position of authority. Documents have emerged which seem to allow for what once was considered out of sync with our Catholic faith.

And perhaps the most troubling of all surrounds what appears an attempt to greatly restrict or completely eliminate the Mass of the Ages. The Mass of Saints and Martyrs. The Mass that has been practiced since around 400 AD and virtually unchanged since the 3rd Century.

In the wake of this most interesting time in the Church, my natural instinct is to seek out as much information as possible. Although the attack on the TLM alone is a topic well worth exploring, the elephant in the room needs to be addressed. Has there been a decline that has led us to where we are, and if so, what might have been the catalyst?

In my search for answers to the current state of affairs regarding the Church, I somehow stumbled upon a YouTube homily to SSPX seminarians. Now, before you decide to disconnect, it must be acknowledged that recently it was clarified that the SSPX is not in schism, nor do they espouse sedevacantist sentiments. In fact, they pray for the Pope at every Mass in their TLM liturgy. In addition, we as Catholics have been instructed that we may attend an SSPX Mass and receive Communion, as their Mass as well as the Consecration is valid. All that is to say that what you hear from an SSPX perspective regarding doctrine is no less accurate than from most faithful Catholic priests…at least, those who are fully educated on the teachings of the Church. And now, we move on.

The sermon to seminarians in part was to inform them of some teachings from Vatican II that were in direct contradiction to previous Magisteria. Why, you may ask, is that of any significance? If there is an immemorial consensus of Popes and Magisteria through the history of the Church, any contradiction in a new Council needs to be viewed with suspicion and caution. New teachings that change what was a previous Magisterial consensus is an innovation. And if we truly believe that the Holy Spirit is given to the Church to prevent Her from teaching error, a contradiction to divinely established immemorial teachings cannot be correct. If so, the Divinity of Jesus, the Hypostatic Union, or the Immaculate Conception could be up for grabs next.

Let me give you some of the highlights of the Homily to Seminarians, where four specific comparisons were given. In each example, the first statement is from the immemorial teaching, as given in the sermon. The second statement is from Vatican II, again as given in the sermon. My comments follow each point.

EXAMPLE 1

Immemorial Teaching: “Indifferentism gives rise to that erroneous proposition that claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs.”

From Vatican II: The demand is increasingly made that men should act on their own judgement. This demand for freedom regards in the first place the free exercise of religion in society. This Vatican Council takes note of these desires. It declares them to be greatly in accord with truth and justice.”

[NOTE: The word ‘demand’ should stand out. From whom? And why act upon demands? Is that how doctrine and teaching are established? Every man should be encouraged and free to act...even if it does not align with Truth?]

EXAMPLE 2

Immemorial Teaching: “It is condemned that liberty of conscience in worship is each man’s personal right and that every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which he considers true.”

From Vatican II: “This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom.”

[NOTE: In the pursuit of the religious freedom V2 suggests, the Church opens Herself to become a cosmopolitan mish-mash of personally professed beliefs that conflict with each other, as well as with Doctrine.]

EXAMPLE 3

Immemorial Teaching: “Ecumenical efforts can meet with no kind of approval among Catholics. These efforts presuppose the erroneous view that all religions are more or less good and praiseworthy inasmuch as all give expression to that innate sense which leads men to God.”

From Vatican II: “The Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life those precepts and teachings which often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men.”

[NOTE: Are we to believe that if there is a ‘ray of truth’ that appears in some way to enlighten, our goal is to promote these non-Catholic faiths? Keep in mind that even the Devil expressed a ‘ray’ of truth when he quoted Scripture to Our Lord over those 40 days.]

EXAMPLE 4

Immemorial Teaching: “Worship in common with non-Catholic religions must be entirely avoided.”

From Vatican II: “Some worship in common given suitable circumstances is not only possible, but to be encouraged.”

[NOTE: This example requires some deep thought. On the surface, in today’s world where ‘unity’ and getting along is stressed, one might feel V2 had it right. But did they? In order to worship in unity, there must be a consensus of thought in the critical areas of worship. For one, how does each group define God? For some groups, the Trinity is non-existent. If both say they are worshipping God, but one group is worshipping a non-Triune God, is that truly God? Another serious point of contention is that even if both groups believe in a Triune God, how does each view Jesus, particularly in the Eucharist? To be in communion means to be in agreement. Ecumenical services with common worship by definition aligns the Catholic to those who reject the truth about Jesus and the salvation process.]

Apostolic Succession isn’t merely the laying on of hands from an Apostolic Bishop to the next generation of Apostolic Bishops. Part of the meaning is that the teachings passed down since the time of Christ remain in an unbroken line of agreement between all generations of our bishops. Hence, the preservation of immemorial teachings. If a new teaching comes that contradicts what was always believed by the Church, one or the other is wrong. And so, we are tasked with deciding whether all the bishops throughout the life of Catholicism were right as inspired by the Holy Spirit, or if a new bishop with a ‘tweak’ is right. It should not be too difficult to determine.

Bearing that in mind, it is understandable as to why there is concern about a watering down of the teachings of the Church. We have seen so much evidence of that in recent years.

There are a number of priests who are sympathetic to same sex attraction, and believe those in such relationships should be offered Communion without repenting of this grave sin. There is a push to ‘bless’ those relationships, as we saw repeatedly after the release of "Fiducia Supplicans." Even though we are told the intention was to bless individuals, it has played out that couples come forward and are blessed together, giving the appearance of scandal. We observe how priests who have abused boys and women are not disciplined. In fact, a certain artist priest in that category has his odd mosaics on the walls of Catholic Churches around the world. And this is the tip of the iceberg. Individual priests have allowed questionable, if not outrageous, pieces of art to be housed in the walls of their parishes. A recent one comes to mind of the Virgin Mary giving birth, depicted quite immodestly.

In contrast, good and holy priests who are faithful to immemorial magisterial teachings find themselves removed from their duties or even excommunicated. And traditional Catholics are criticized as ones who seek to "safeguard the ashes" of the past. Novus Order parishioners have gone so far as to say that we are a post-Vatican II Church, so there’s no room for tradition…as if the Church can be divided in this way. No matter the form of the Mass, we are but one Church.

All of this is not meant to be an exhaustive expose. Certainly, books could be dedicated to the subject matter. It is only meant to bring some perspective to those don’t understand why some are troubled at what the post-conciliar Church has become. It is also meant to give you, the reader, reason to perhaps do some of your own research as to the changes that transpired at Vatican II. And as you do your research into what was always taught compared to some new line of thought that contradicts, you might then understand the concerns of many Catholics.

It isn’t a matter of ‘safeguarding the ashes of the past.’ It is more the important work of preserving the teachings that have always been. If we don’t understand this, we fall into the error of believing that the Holy Spirit led the Church in error for centuries, and is now correcting Her (it's absurd to believe the Spirit would lead the Church in error.) Keep in mind, the so-called Reformers (Luther, et al) had that same perspective…along with every new denomination that has emerged since then.